It occurred to me, recently, that i'm a Eucharist agonist. For i'm agonizing over two tales of this sacrament introduced by Jesus at His last supper. There are protagonists to the left of me, antagonists to the right; here i am stuck in the middle not knowing who is true.

The protagonists of the Eucharist tell me the bread really is Christ's body and the wine really is His blood, and eating His flesh and drinking His blood is necessary for obtaining eternal life. They tell me to read my Redeemer's words and consider them carefully:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

(1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

Now, i'm not asking for the sake of debate (however, i realize i'll have to play devil's advocate to learn the rebuttal to the opposing viewpoint). I really want to know the truth about Holy Communion, as the antagonists' argument is one reason why i have not returned to the faith of my youth. Please help this agonist get the genuine gist of the true tale of the Eucharist.

It occurred to me, recently, that i'm a Eucharist agonist. For i'm agonizing over two tales of this sacrament introduced by Jesus at His last supper. There are protagonists to the left of me, antagonists to the right; here i am stuck in the middle not knowing who is true.

The protagonists of the Eucharist tell me the bread really is Christ's body and the wine really is His blood, and eating His flesh and drinking His blood is necessary for obtaining eternal life. They tell me to read my Redeemer's words and consider them carefully:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

(1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

Now, i'm not asking for the sake of debate (however, i realize i'll have to play devil's advocate to learn the rebuttal to the opposing viewpoint). I really want to know the truth about Holy Communion, as the antagonists' argument is one reason why i have not returned to the faith of my youth. Please help this agonist get the genuine gist of the true tale of the Eucharist.

Keeping in mind thet the Last Supper is one year after John 6, does the timing help any? Did Jesus know exactly what He would be doing one year later, with the same apostles?

I'm struck with the antagonist using the words of Paul's in Corinthians to bolster their position. You seemed to have cut off his words before he was finished defending the Eucharist.

28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself
How can something that is symbolic be sinful if done incorrectly? This is like telling someone the worship of idols is false, but unless you do it, that "false" god will punish you.

__________________Follow your Dreams! Except for the ones where you're naked in Church!

It
Now, i'm not asking for the sake of debate (however, i realize i'll have to play devil's advocate to learn the rebuttal to the opposing viewpoint). I really want to know the truth about Holy Communion, as the antagonists' argument is one reason why i have not returned to the faith of my youth. Please help this agonist get the genuine gist of the true tale of the Eucharist.

since both your quotes affirm the same truth, what is your question?

__________________Whatever the Lord pleases He does, on heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps. Ps. 135

If you ever have a chance, catch Fr. Bill Casey on EWTN. He's with the Fathers of Mercy. I think he explains this very well, using that verse from John along with the several verses following the ones you quote. Basically, many of his disciples were disheartened after hearing that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood and they walked away and stopped following him from that point. Fr. Casey points out that Jesus didn't stop them, he didn't try to correct their understanding of what he said. If he was speaking symbollically, wouldn't he have brought them back to make sure they understood this? Since he was speaking literally, there could be no confusing his meaning and therefore no need to correct their understanding. They just couldn't accept it.

Of course Fr. Casey explains it much more eloquently and fervently. I just wish I could remember the name of the show in which he preaches this message.

"Our Savior was speaking merely metaphorically."
My question to them is always two-fold:
1. Logically, when Jesus spoke of Himself as 'the Door', and 'the Vine', those descriptions make metaphorical sense. However, in what metaphorical sense could Jesus logically refer to Himself as 'Bread'? The two simply do not go together (as a metaphor).
2. Did Jesus tell us to consume the Door and the Vine?

I have yet to have any non-Catholic give me a satisfactory answer to these two questions.

Socrates, your problem comes from misunderstanding the use of the word "remembrance". Do a study on the Hebrew word "zikkaron". During their celebrations such as passover, which of course directly correlates to the Eucharist, the Jews believe the past truly becomes present. That is what Jesus meant by remembrance, and that's what his apostles (Jews themselves) understood him to mean.

It is this liturgical remembrance (zikkaron) that enables the Jewish people throughout time to experience the foundational events of the covenant with the Lord; and to do so in such a way that they become real witnesses to and participants in the Sacred Acts which formed the Jewish nation and made them the Lord's chosen people. However, this focus of the liturgy on the actions of God in the past does not mean that the events of the present moment are unimportant; instead, the events of Sacred History give meaning to the experiences of the Jewish community of today. In some sense the events of today are assimilated to, and are included in, the remembrance of the foundational events of the covenant [cf. Weiser, 50]. The whole purpose of the liturgy is to bring the mighty works of God in Sacred History into contact with each successive generation of the People of God. For if the actions of God in forming His people were only a reality of the distant past it would, as a consequence, empty modern life of any real value, and God would appear to have become silent and inactive.

But Judaism has always seen God as the Lord of history, and not just of the history of biblical times, but of the history of all times; and so through the liturgy the People of Israel are able to re-live God's redemptive actions in all times and in all places.

So the point is that the Eucharist is a zikkaron event. The past is made present and we are brought to cavalry. That's why we celebrate mass over and over again. Not to recrucify Jesus or because his sacrifice needs to be performed repeatedly, but because we ourselves are able to participate in the same sacrifice and receive its grace repeatedly.

Logically, when Jesus spoke of Himself as 'the Door', and 'the Vine', those descriptions make metaphorical sense. However, in what metaphorical sense could Jesus logically refer to Himself as 'Bread'? The two simply do not go together (as a metaphor).

How does one identify a metaphor?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustaServant

2. Did Jesus tell us to consume the Door and the Vine?

ISTM that you're saying that one of the identifying “marks,” of a metaphor, if you will, is that one is not told to eat something?

How does one identify a metaphor?ISTM that you're saying that one of the identifying “marks,” of a metaphor, if you will, is that one is not told to eat something?

How does one identify a metaphor?

Is the analogy derived from a metaphor easily identified.

I am the gatekeeper. The gatekeeper decides who comes in and who leaves. The Kingdom of God has a Gatekeeper, Jesus Christ.

The symbolic meaning of "eat my flesh" - the grinding of the bones that the last 2 'eat my fleshes' that Jesus commands in John 6 - seems to indicate loathing and reviling, as is evidence by one of the psalms (maybe 110 or 114?).

How does one gain eternal life by reviling Jesus?

__________________Follow your Dreams! Except for the ones where you're naked in Church!

Socrates, your problem comes from misunderstanding the use of the word "remembrance". Do a study on the Hebrew word "zikkaron". During their celebrations such as passover, which of course directly correlates to the Eucharist, the Jews believe the past truly becomes present. That is what Jesus meant by remembrance, and that's what his apostles (Jews themselves) understood him to mean.

So the point is that the Eucharist is a zikkaron event. The past is made present and we are brought to cavalry. That's why we celebrate mass over and over again. Not to recrucify Jesus or because his sacrifice needs to be performed repeatedly, but because we ourselves are able to participate in the same sacrifice and receive its grace repeatedly.

I'm struck with the antagonist using the words of Paul's in Corinthians to bolster their position. You seemed to have cut off his words before he was finished defending the Eucharist.

28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself
How can something that is symbolic be sinful if done incorrectly? This is like telling someone the worship of idols is false, but unless you do it, that "false" god will punish you.

Good question. I suppose the answer might be found by considering the answer to this question:

In the United States, one might see two symbolic rituals take place:

Reciting the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag

Taking a leak on, dragging through the mud, and burning the United States flag

Do you think either of these acts are offensive to some? If so, which one offends and why?

If you ever have a chance, catch Fr. Bill Casey on EWTN. He's with the Fathers of Mercy. I think he explains this very well, using that verse from John along with the several verses following the ones you quote. Basically, many of his disciples were disheartened after hearing that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood and they walked away and stopped following him from that point. Fr. Casey points out that Jesus didn't stop them, he didn't try to correct their understanding of what he said. If he was speaking symbollically, wouldn't he have brought them back to make sure they understood this? Since he was speaking literally, there could be no confusing his meaning and therefore no need to correct their understanding. They just couldn't accept it.

Of course Fr. Casey explains it much more eloquently and fervently. I just wish I could remember the name of the show in which he preaches this message.

RST:

Regarding the honorable friars, i doubt they'd take the time to honor me with answers to my questions!

Regarding your assertion that Jesus was speaking literally in John, chapter 6, i hope you will be kind enough to answer these two questions: